RangerWickett
Legend
One is enough. Two is too many. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
How many "random encounters" is too much?
- Thread starter Oryan77
- Start date
I think I could play 2-3 sessions consisting of nothing but such 'pre-planned random encounters' before I would feel it was time to get on with the main adventure.
In my 3e campaign these kind of encounters made up the bulk of the gameplay because it involved a lot of traveling all over the place and I dislike using large 'dungeons'. I think that as long as you're using a good mix of roleplaying and combat encounters and some of them foreshadow events or illustrate important events happening elsewhere or serve as additional adventure hooks, they can be as important as the 'real' adventures.
What I dislike more are long strings of samey activities, e.g. after four sessions of nothing but roleplaying or exploration or a string of combat encounters I get twitchy.
As often as it "makes sense" for the setting. Which leads me to...
It entirely depends on how long the trip takes for my PC, so I can't adhere to this bit. If we're walking from a small village a few miles outside of a major city to the major city, I'm probably okay with less interference than if we're talking for a month to get from one location to another. It's basically just a verisimilitude issue at this point, though.
As far as "progressing the story" or whatever, that's what I consider playing the game. With your caveat of "fun and meaningful", I'm okay with random encounters with pretty much any amount of frequency, as long as it does not become too contrived or make the setting seem too incoherent. I don't mind changing goals for my character as he receives new information, so these encounters can definitely lead me to change my intended course of action. With that in mind, I see that as "progressing the story", and would have no problem interacting with the world as it unfolds around me.
Hope that helps. I can't really give a number. If the random encounters are just unrelated stuff that don't matter much to my character along the way, my answer would change, and I could probably conjure a number for you. But, as long as they're fun and meaningful, bring them on; I mean, that's why I play the game, after all. As always, play what you like
I like teh cut of your jib sir!
CAFRedblade
Explorer
Doesn't it somewhat depend on the type of game. Story driven adventures probably have more planned encounters with fewer random events/encounters. Meanwhile the Sandbox/Hexcrawl type is quite possibly filled with them, depending on what the DM rolls, and how often he checks, 1/hour, 1/day etc.
One of the things I remember from playing/reading 2ed was that many of the random encounters tables didn't resolve directly to combat encounters, but little social encounters, passing travellers, street urchin begging for food and so forth. Somehow, I personally feel in the example tables for 3rd ed that was dropped/skipped over. But it's been awhile since I picked up a 3rd ed book, so I could very well be wrong.
One of the things I remember from playing/reading 2ed was that many of the random encounters tables didn't resolve directly to combat encounters, but little social encounters, passing travellers, street urchin begging for food and so forth. Somehow, I personally feel in the example tables for 3rd ed that was dropped/skipped over. But it's been awhile since I picked up a 3rd ed book, so I could very well be wrong.
For me, it really depends on how a "random encounter" is handled in play.
If it's not really meaningful - that is, the story proceeds the same way with the encounter as it would without it - than one is too many for me. It's just a waste of time and effort in dice rolling that doesn't enrich play in any way.
If it is random (even generated randomly during play), but it works as a hook that may push play in a new direction, then I'm all for it. I can imagine a fun session consisting entirely of this kind of encounters, if players actively direct the story and the GM improvises, building on what the players and the random tables give him. Not my typical style of play, definitely, but I would gladly try it.
If it's not really meaningful - that is, the story proceeds the same way with the encounter as it would without it - than one is too many for me. It's just a waste of time and effort in dice rolling that doesn't enrich play in any way.
If it is random (even generated randomly during play), but it works as a hook that may push play in a new direction, then I'm all for it. I can imagine a fun session consisting entirely of this kind of encounters, if players actively direct the story and the GM improvises, building on what the players and the random tables give him. Not my typical style of play, definitely, but I would gladly try it.
Wednesday Boy
The Nerd WhoFell to Earth
Likewise. I could not have said it better!
Some of my notes on random encounters: They are not always physical or combative, some times the players just see something, like a dragon flying by, a Bigfoot on a hill top, a bear in the woods doing bear stuff.
The GM can use many of these encounters to foreshadow events in their campaign. A herd of dear can be running from giant raiders on the border.
The GM can use many of these encounters to foreshadow events in their campaign. A herd of dear can be running from giant raiders on the border.
that's a clever answer, but it's also a matter of semantics. If I'm investigating the evil gang of bank robbers, and I run into a farmer with a stuck wagon while on my way to their cave, and I deduce that the farmer encounter has nothing at all to do with the bank robbers, I am going to label it a Random Encounter.
That doesn't mean that the GM didn't actually put the farmer there as a lookout for the bank robbers. merely that to the player, it appears to be unrelated and thus is "random"
Random Encounter basically means "stuff that happens that has no relation to the player's goal at hand"
I think having one or two unrelated events/encounters can add local color or flavor to the setting/adventure. Not everybody you meet on the road is going to be part of the plot you're investigating. Things would be too obvious and linear if the only encounters you had were the next ones needed to continue the quest.
However, if I have to take a week long journey to another city, making me play through a week's worth of random encounters before I get to the city to effectively resume the quest is probably not the best use of my time, dramatic pacing or application of verisimilitude.
Note, in the past, I've done that trick. It basically meant that I could roll up all the random encounters needed for the trip and fill in a session's worth of material to cover the trip. It's lazy DMing, and doesn't result in a quality experience for the player.
It also artificially pads experience. Assuming you dole out XP by the kill, you're basically giving out extra XP, which means the PCs are going to level up faster before they solve the next quest. Being stingy on the encounters, means the PCs are less likely to level up by the time they reach the BBEG
If by "random encounter" you mean "encounter not related to the goal(s) the PCs are currently focused upon" then it depends on how serious the PCs goals are.
If, for example, the PCs are currently in a reactive mode, and have no goals they're actively pursing at the moment, them pile 'em on! Those are no longer so much random encounters as plot hooks!
If, on the other hand, the PCs are in a mad dash to Save the World, then honestly, they should be rushing through the world rather ignoring the external stimuli, and such encounters should only be used to jack up pressure even further, if they are used at all.
There are other things that impact the desirability of random encounters. For example, my Deadlands game runs twice a month, for only a few hours each session. If I spend *any* time on random encounters, that means the party's main concerns (aka The Plot) goes nowhere for a session. Even if the main concerns aren't life threatening, that can feel like a waste of time. So, I only use random encounters if my encounter idea is really, really cool and interesting, such that a mini-adventure of it would still be cool. If, on the other hand, you run a weekly game for 8-hours and more a shot, you can still keep things moving forward even if a lot of time is spent on side-branches of plot.
If, for example, the PCs are currently in a reactive mode, and have no goals they're actively pursing at the moment, them pile 'em on! Those are no longer so much random encounters as plot hooks!
If, on the other hand, the PCs are in a mad dash to Save the World, then honestly, they should be rushing through the world rather ignoring the external stimuli, and such encounters should only be used to jack up pressure even further, if they are used at all.
There are other things that impact the desirability of random encounters. For example, my Deadlands game runs twice a month, for only a few hours each session. If I spend *any* time on random encounters, that means the party's main concerns (aka The Plot) goes nowhere for a session. Even if the main concerns aren't life threatening, that can feel like a waste of time. So, I only use random encounters if my encounter idea is really, really cool and interesting, such that a mini-adventure of it would still be cool. If, on the other hand, you run a weekly game for 8-hours and more a shot, you can still keep things moving forward even if a lot of time is spent on side-branches of plot.
